In Contact Centers and CX, you sometimes hear: “I know it’s not ideal, but it helps us to…”
But a bad decision in the name of a good outcome is still a bad decision. Here’s why.
This article is part of our Life at Work Series — where we explore the practices, challenges, and lessons that shape our professional lives.
Spot the Pattern
“Our transaction survey should be short, but Marketing wants to build relationships—so we’re adding more questions.”
“Transactional NPS isn’t ideal for Agent performance, but sharing comments boosts engagement.”
“Measuring # of Calls Handled isn’t perfect, but it keeps us cost efficient.”
“Stealing is wrong, but the money would fund my studies.”
Each example uses a good outcome to defend a bad decision. And phrases like “I know this isn’t quite right…” are a red flag—they signal that even the speaker knows the logic is weak.
Why This Shuts Down Thinking
Who argues against cost efficiency, Agent engagement, or Customer relationships? These are all good things.
That’s why defending a shaky decision with a worthy goal is so dangerous—it shuts the conversation down. The focus shifts to the outcome, when what we really need to examine is the decision itself.
The 2-Step Decision Test
When you hear “It’s not ideal, but it helps us…”, put the outcome aside and test the decision with two questions:
Prove the lever. Is this action a significant, positively correlated driver of the outcome? Show the data—scatter plots, case studies, financial models. Opinions don’t pass.
Check ecosystem impact (C–E–O). What happens to Customers, Employees, and the Organization in the short, mid, and long term?
Quick check: Proven? Net-positive across C–E–O? Ethical and brand-aligned?
Apply It: “# of Calls Handled” as an Agent Metric
Prove the lever: In reality, targeting Agents on # of Calls Handled rarely drives cost efficiency. More often, it encourages shortcuts that hurt quality.
Ecosystem impact:
Customers: Quality drops → repeat contacts rise → frustration grows.
Employees: Pressure to go faster stifles skill-building and meaningful conversations.
Organization: Higher repeat volume raises costs, drags Service Level, and lowers CSAT. Complaints and churn follow.
The supposed “cost efficiency” decision backfires. Case closed.
What if the Lever Works?
Even if a questionable action does move a metric, it can still fail the ecosystem test.
Yes, stealing might fund your studies. But the ethics and long-term impacts make it an unacceptable decision.
Good outcomes don’t excuse bad decisions.
Why This Matters
It might seem like nitpicking. But it’s not.
The way leaders approach decision-making shapes the health of the entire ecosystem. A few sloppy calls—“I know it’s not ideal, but…”—can ripple out to Customers, Employees, and the Organization with lasting damage.
Better questions lead to better decisions. And better decisions lead to better outcomes—without the cost of bad logic.
Thank you for reading!
I regularly share stories, strategies, and insights from our work across Contact Centers, Customer Service, and Customer Experience. If this resonates, I’d love to stay connected.
You can drop me a line anytime, or subscribe via our website.
Daniel Ord
[email protected]
www.omnitouchinternational.com
I